on t ;the rights of beasts. 121 



ble truth, that the breach of thefe obligations 

 has ever been attended with impunity here; 

 but if we fuppofe that fuch will be the cafe 

 hereafter, the very foundation of the doctrine 

 of future rewards and punifhments is at once 

 fwept away. La morte ejifommeil eternel. We 

 may as well, at once, adopt the imperfecl prin- 

 ciple of Diderot, who, in his Jean Le Fatalifte, 

 inftrucls us, that " could we take a view of the 

 chain of caufes and effefts which conftitutes the 

 life of an individual, from the firft inftant of 

 his birth to his laft breath, we fhould be con- 

 vinced that he has done no one thing, but what 

 he was neceffarily compelled to do." 



I am aware of a fmall feci olBramins among 

 us, who are difpofed to proceed a ftep beyond 

 me, and to deny that nature has conferred any 

 fuch right on man, as that of taking the lives of 

 animals, or of eating their flefh. Thefe, I fup- 

 pofe, are the legitimate defcendants of the faints 

 of Butler's days, who were for 



abolifhing black-pudding, 



And eating nothing with the blood in. 



Certain philofophers there are alfo, in Para- 

 guay (if travellers may be depended upon) who 

 will not eat (heep, left they mould get children 

 covered with wool ; a very rational apprehen- 

 iion, a priori, no doubt. Noxious and danger- 

 ous animals, I fuppofe, are included in this fyf- 



tem 



